of No God
With a little liberty on thinking along the lines of societies and cultures which live as if the christian God (or muslim God or Jewish God or some other God definition including the multiple gods definition) is the Truth, the be-all end-all of all, I think most can relate to the way this position is presented.
Critical to this position is the idea of reality, of having an experience with something like the experience I'm having right now with my keyboard and computer monitor, having something that doesn't require human imagination to be perceived and conceptualized, that doesn't rely on ancient documents, that doesn't leverage off of what others say but is clearly evident and clearly real to the persons having the experience. That's key in following the logic presented in the following:
Now, to defeat the "there is no god" statement, you must provide a logical argument for at least one god (or any god or all gods). In that argument, you must either deal with all other gods as equal to or as much a reality as the selected god(s) or you must treat all other gods as "there are no other gods but the god(s) you've selected as existent based on ______ as compared to the absence of existence for all other gods based on ______".
Now, once you've boxed in your chosen god(s), you must explain how you made all the other gods disappear, as well as how you eliminated all gods undefined and how your selected god(s) avoided that massive god-elimination event by which you've managed to eliminate all gods but one (or a group of more than one that you've chosen).
Really, a tough challenge for you there, as once you make one god appear, assuming you can do so, for that's all it takes to defeat the argument "there is no god", how do you prevent as many gods from appearing as one can imagine and, furthermore, when does the appearing god transition from imaginary to reality, for such a transition must be required to defeat the "there is no god" statement.
All it takes is a single god for you to defeat the statement "there is no god", but if in doing so, you defeat other gods imagined by billions of people, in essence you've supported the position of "there is(are) only the god(s) you've selected and only that(those) god(s) is(are) real - all other gods do not exist".
Your position then becomes "there are no other gods than the god(s) you've selected".
Now, if god=nothing, "there is no god" is a self-evident proposition, for nothing=god and god=nothing is the same as "there is no god".
Therefore, to falsify the statement, "there is no god", the god must be something and if, in creating or evidencing the something you open the door to multiple somethings, then god=somethings and the only valid statement becomes "there are many gods."
But then, by definition of some of the many, some claim their god(s) is(are) "the only", so to defeat that argument you must disprove that their god(s) is(are) "the only". Therein, you get into the area of irreconcilable god(s) in which all you've done is created an argument of god(s)=impossibility.
To make any god(s) possible, god(s) must be boxed in, as if humans could box in god(s), and non-god(s) must be excluded. If that cannot be done by humans, the god concept becomes an absurdity, an impossibility if you will, a meaningless word with irreconcilable definitions. One human's god(s) is(are) another human's myths.
So, an absurd definition for god(s) yields an absurdity ... god(s)=impossibility and impossibility=god(s) are the same as "there is no god".
Now, if in the unknown, you create god(s), you must get it(them) out of the unknown to invalidate the "there is no god" statement, for nothing in the unknown can invalidate the statement. To invalidate the statement, it must become part of the known, for without knowledge how can one experience it or even say what it is?
If your god(s) exist in the supernatural, you must demonstrate an absence of naturalism there. You must find an endpoint for naturalism, a place where naturalistic events don't constrain your god(s), and a methodology by which the supernatural transitions to / from the natural and/or a methodology by which the natural transitions to / from the supernatural.
If the natural and supernatural never interact, that certainly would defeat the immortality aspirations many use their boxed in god(s) for. So, to be important and relevant and meaningful to humans, that transition methodology would have to be addressed. Is there any methodology there other than human imagination? Has anyone succeeded in connecting the modality of the natural with the supernatural?
Your quandary thus transitions to the only valid statement you can try to make to defeat the "there is no god" statement is that something in the unknown (in the supernatural area you've created above or in the natural area that humans have yet to substantiate with validatable and testable experience) may be god.
But if it is in the unknown, the god(s) you've created is(are) nothing but an imaginary thing, with limits you've set, a reflection of you, and anyone and everyone can do the same exact procedure, and you're faced with the same problem iterated above, that being god(s)=impossibility and that's the same as "there is no god".
Imaginary things cannot defeat the "there is no god" statement, because it must become known in order to leave the unknown. If it becomes known, it defeats the "there is no god" statement but even so, unless it demonstrates the ability of all inclusiveness, the ability to be all, there would always be doubt regarding what resides beyond the limits of comprehension ...
In other words, on this earth, in this life, "there is no god" cannot be defeated unless the god becomes known and the god becomes all. Until it does, it's imaginary and "there is no god" cannot be defeated by any imaginary entity, no matter how much one may wish it were so.
Now, you might submit, when you die, you meet god(s) and therein resides a defeat of "there is no god". My reply is simple, claims of god(s) do not god(s) make, and for you to defeat "there is no god" you must provide evidence as iterated above.
You can claim there is evidence in another world or an afterlife and you can create all sorts of fanciful notions regarding that world (many have - see religions for a long list of claims), but in all of that, without one shred of evidence, all you have are claims (irreconcilable claims) and no claim, no matter how cleverly guised, can defeat the "there is no god" statement unless it can cross the bridge from imagination to reality. Until then, "there is no god" is irrefutable as described above.
If god(s) exist in the unknown, it / she / he / they have demonstrated to-date an amazing ability to remain there. If we go to the unknown, I hope we know we're there. To presume a human can know that there is a there, and furthermore, to presume a human can comment intelligently on god(s) and other entities there stretches human imagination to the breaking point, a point beyond which exists nothing but hopes, dreams, fantasies, and fears.
is no god"